Justification of the bill
on the recognition of the legal personality of the Oder River
Download the justification in pdf:
I. The necessity and intent behind the Law’s issuance. The actual state in the area that requires normalization.
- Effective legal protection and coordinated efforts to restore the Oder River ecosystem
The law aims to guarantee adequate legal protection for the entire Oder River ecosystem and to create mechanisms for inter-institutional cooperation to ensure the river’s broader health and well-being.
The turning point for the river, animals, plants, and local communities living within the vast Oder River ecosystem was one of the largest environmental disasters in the history of United Europe. A European Commission report describes the event: “In August 2022, a massive fish die-off was recorded on the Oder River, ultimately resulting in the annihilation of approximately 360 tons of fish. The event caused serious ecological impacts along 500 kilometers of the river. (…) At the time of issuing this report, it is clear that this ecological disaster was not just a natural phenomenon but was caused by several factors, many of which are of human origin”[1].
The cause of the disaster was an algal bloom of the so-called “golden alga,” Prymnesium parvum. The comprehensive report on the situation on the Oder River, authored by a team consisting of 46 experts representing the most important research institutions in Poland, stressed (p. 258): “…at the end of July and the beginning of August, the waters of the Oder River experienced favorable conditions for the growth of these algae and the development of toxicity, i.e. significantly increased conductivity, chloride and sulfate content, increased water temperature, high sunlight, significant fluctuations in water parameters over time. The hydromorphology of the waters of the Oder, which is a largely regulated river – the presence of many reservoirs, as well as slowing down of the flow in front of weirs, canals, and, therefore, places conducive to algal blooms – is also not without significance.”[2].
In other words, the very first analyses indicated that the previous protection methods had failed. The very high level of pollution and the lack of free flow of the river were mentioned among the leading causes of the tragedy so painfully experienced by the entire Oder River ecosystem, including the 16 million people living around the water that sustains their health and survival
Subsequent scientific studies have yielded more detailed and poignant data illustrating the true extent of the environmental catastrophe – extinctions include:
- From 82 to 122 million fish[3] (mainly ruffe, bream, and perch) in the lower Oder River section alone, with a biomass of 1025 tonnes. Total fish mortality is estimated at 1,650 tonnes, representing a population decline of as much as 60% from pre-disaster levels,
- 65 million individuals of bivalve mollusks of the scaphopod family (Unionidae), a decline of 88% in their population,
- 147 million aquatic snails, mainly gilled snails, (Viviparus viviparus), representing a population decline of 85%.
The species of native bivalve mollusk, the Duck mussel (Anodonta anatina), has suffered the most, with a population decline of as much as 95%. To make matters worse, there was a serious risk of the niche left by the native species being filled by an invasive species of Chinese pond mussel (Sinanodonta Woodiana), whose population was affected by only a 15% drop following the catastrophe[4]. The most recent scientific report, analyzing data from 2023, a year after the disaster (2023), confirms the above considerations (p.67): “Of great concern is the fact that Unionidae [native scaphopod species] bivalves are nearly 5 times fewer than invasive bivalves. In the absence of active conservation measures, we expect that invasive and alien species will win the race for habitat.”[5]. According to experts, the process of repopulation of the Oder River by the indicated animal species may take more than 10 years, and the decline in the clam population significantly increases the risk of another disaster – clams filter the water, feed on algae, among other things, and thus, effectively reduce their numbers.[6].
In conclusion, the Oder River is in dire need of effective legal protection and coordination of ecosystem restoration efforts, especially protection from pollution and excessive human interference, which are hindering the process of its natural restoration.
- The flawed nature of current regulations and the need for urgent, fundamental changes
The ecological catastrophe of 2022 forcefully revealed that the legal solutions in place do not provide adequate legal protection for the entire river ecosystem. The Supreme Audit Office analyzed the situation in great detail and presented its conclusions in the information on the results of the audit of the activities of public entities in relation to the ecological crisis on the Oder River (hereinafter NIK Report 2023). NIK experts point out a number of problems related to the current law and its implementation, and among the most important, they are worth recalling:
a) Transfer of the government administration department of water management from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Infrastructure. The report emphasizes: “According to NIK experts, these conditions did not serve to ensure proper water protection. Entrusting the above-mentioned tasks to the Minister of Infrastructure indicates that protecting rivers from excessive pollution has become a less important aspect of state policy than their use for economic purposes. This opinion is based, among other things, on the information referring to planned and ongoing infrastructure investments aimed at transforming the river into a transport route, as well as the intentions envisaged in the regulations on the revitalization of the Oder River” (NIK Report 2023 p. 13).
b) The multiplicity of entities and blurred responsibility for achieving specific water quality goals hinder the assurance of high-quality water. The report presents a valuable infographic outlining 17 entities involved in the management and protection of the Oder River (NIK Report 2023, pp. 12-13).

c) Act of ignoring by public authorities information on the adverse effects of surface water salinity, which have been raised both in previous NIK reports and scientific studies.
The document indicates that “it is crucial, according to NIK experts, to immediately reduce the discharge of saline mine waters and adjust it to the hydrometeorological conditions and the ecosystem’s capacity to receive it.” (NIK Report, 2023, p. 14).
d) the lack of complete and reliable information on the level of pollution in the Oder River: “Authorities responsible for the protection of surface waters and the accomplishment of the environmental objectives did not have complete data on the actual scale and composition of wastewater entering the Oder River nor about the entities discharging it. They did not thoroughly analyze the pressure caused by the total permitted wastewater discharge, taking into account the changes taking place in the river, both in the framework of the proceedings for the issuance of water permits and control activities.” (NIK Report, 2023, p. 15)
e) the possibility of lawful pollution of the Oder River on a scale leading to another ecological disaster: “An expert report commissioned by the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) shows that the current permits allow for the discharge of industrial wastewater to contain in their composition chlorides and sulfates in amounts that, in the light of unfavorable hydrological conditions, can cause pollution many (up to 300) times above the values set as environmental targets in the 2016 update of the Oder River Basin Management Plan, as well as the targets set in the second update of this plan in 2022. Thus, the river’s extreme salinity does not have to be caused by illegal wastewater discharges, and sufficient for its creation are activities carried out on the basis of already obtained permits. The 2023 water tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Inspectorate show that conditions favorable to the development of golden algae still exist in the Oder River. The further occurrence of this organism in the Oder River and Gliwice Canal has also been confirmed. This demonstrates the lack of expected effectiveness of the audited units’ efforts in reducing salinity (NIK Report, 2023, p. 15).
The authors of another study related to the NIK report indicate, on the basis of a separately commissioned expert report, that: “decisions on water permits and integrated permits were made without taking into consideration the welfare of the Oder River and its tributaries. According to the report’s authors: << The fundamental factors posing a threat to the environment are the parameters of wastewater allowed in the permits, and in particular their cumulative effect. The problem appears systemic in nature, as the values of permissible wastewater parameters specified in the permits are primarily dictated by the interests of the enterprises, rather than by the pursuit of the environmental goals set out in the Water Management Plans>> ”[7].
f) unfavorable changes in regulations introduced after the Oder disaster occurred
The NIK report also emphasizes that “the Minister mitigated the adopted environmental target related to the conductivity parameter, thereby allowing the possibility of an increase in the salinity of the Oder River from the border of the Republic of Poland with the Czech Republic up to the estuary of the Warta River. The limit value of the environmental target for chloride concentration in this section (depending on the surface water bodies) was raised about 100-200 times, and the environmental target limit for conductivity was 3-4 times. Thus, right after the Oder catastrophe, the law made room for a significant increase in the discharges of saline wastewater into the Oder River, which in turn will create excellent conditions for developing Prymnesium parvum.” (NIK Report, 2023, p. 23)
g) lowering of monitoring standards and the lack of restrictions on pollution of the Oder River from industrial wastewater and mining plant drainage
The amendment to the water quality assessment system introduced by the Minister of Infrastructure by the 2021 decree (Journal of Laws item 1475) leading to the exclusion of six important and formerly monitored indicators (rate of solutes, sulfates, chlorides, calcium, magnesium, general hardness), is, according to NIK experts, unhelpful and may lead to an adulterated, higher assessment of water quality only as a result of a reduction in the scope of research (NIK Report, 2023, p. 23).
In addition, the study’s authors emphasize that the current regulations do not contain upper limits for salinity in waters discharged by industrial plants or mines and lack precise rules and mechanisms for assessing whether such activities are justified and will not cause adverse environmental effects. According to the NIK, in addition to the direct threat to water quality: “This state of affairs also fails to mobilize entrepreneurs who use water on the basis of permits issued with this regulation in mind to seek new, effective solutions in wastewater desalination techniques and technologies or changes in the production process.” (NIK Report, 2023, p. 24).
h) The July 2023 law does not reduce the risk of a repeat disaster.
An important finding of the NIK is that the law passed in July 2023 is not a solution to the problem and will not ensure the welfare of the Oder River: “The public authorities have a duty, outlined in Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, to carry out policies that ensure the ecological security of present and future generations and the obligation to protect the environment. The Oder’s ecological crisis demonstrates the inadequate implementation of these duties. Also, the solutions envisaged in the Oder Revitalisation Regulations to reduce the salinity of the Oder River and its tributaries, among other things, due to the distant time horizon of their implementation, are not a sufficient response to the needs arising from the current state of these waters and do not reduce the risk of a renewed ecological disaster.” (NIK Report, 2023, p. 10)
A negative assessment of the current regulations is presented not only in the documents of the Supreme Audit Office. Similar conclusions are presented by experts in the field of environmental law in the publication entitled “White Book of Polish Rivers. Lessons from the Oder Disaster” (hereinafter White Paper)[8]. The authors emphasize that the causes of the Polish rivers crisis include: “the location of water management in the Ministry of Infrastructure – which makes the state’s current priorities in water matters unambiguously utilitarian”; “blurred competencies and ineffective legal mechanisms in water resources management and water monitoring”; the lack of “effective river monitoring and the difficulty of coordinating interventions in the event of a disaster that goes beyond the borders of a single province”; “a lack of mechanisms for assessing the cumulative impact of wastewater discharges on water levels – each entity planning to discharge wastewater receives a water permit, but there are no regulations specifying, how to assess the cumulative impacts of multiple wastewater discharges into the same river”; and finally, “concessionary treatment of mine waters – only some of these waters are wastewater under the Water Law, so not all discharges are subject to fees. Mines also have a higher – and, in practice, infinite – limit on chloride and sulfate discharge into rivers, and the extremely low fees do not motivate the treatment of saline water before discharge” (White Paper, pp. 6-7).
Experts also point out that in recent years, not only have we not come close to achieving the legally required water quality indicators, but we have actually seen their further deterioration. For example, in the Oder River basin, as many as 99.7% of rivers (surface water bodies) have not reached the level assessed as good (White Paper, pp. 29-33)[9].
The document emphasizes the need for fundamental changes in the approach to the protection of Polish rivers. The priority must be protecting water resources, not the needs of inland transportation or industry (White Paper, p. 25). Climate change and the associated lowering of water levels make investment in the development of shipping an unjustified solution and should be replaced by the development of rail transport (White Paper 20-22)[10].
To improve the situation of Polish rivers, experts recommend, among other things: “transfer of water management competencies to the minister responsible for the environment. In the management of rivers, primacy should be to achieve and sustainably maintain good status in order to meet the needs of permanent access to water for consumption, sanitation, and food production”; “clear division of competencies regarding water management”; and “implementation of effective water monitoring.”; “improvement of the water consent system – in order to ensure real control over what, when, and in what quantity goes into rivers, it is necessary to implement an effective, coordinated on basin-scale system of issuing water permits and integrated permits for wastewater and post-mining water discharges – corresponding with the knowledge of the current state of rivers, taking into account environmental objectives.” “Analysis and evaluation of the cumulative impact of water permits issued on rivers”; “Wastewater discharge correlated with the situation on the river; control of water permits”; “real water protection in integrated permits”; “change in the status of mine waters”; “increase in the role of social organizations in matters related to water management” (detailed recommendations with justification White Paper, pp. 76-88).
The Law on Revitalisation of the Oder River, passed on July 13, 2023 (OJ 2023, item 1963), did not improve the situation. Even at the legislative work stage, several concerns were raised, which were ignored by the legislature. An expert analysis entitled “The Oder Special Act does not defend the Oder River from catastrophe” (hereinafter Expert Analysis) pointed out, among other things, that the proposed law does not implement the recommendations made in the preliminary report after the disaster (Expert Analysis, pp. 3-7); it was also emphasised that the catalog listed in Article 2 of the Oder Investment Catalog might in fact contribute to the risk of a similar event, since a significant part of the planned activities leads to the restriction of the free flow of the river (Expert Analysis, pp. 7-10). The authors emphasized that concerning the development of a program for the restoration of the ichthyofauna of the Oder River (Article 15 of the current law), the competent entity should be the General Director of Environmental Protection since the State Water Holding-Polish Waters is not a specialised entity in the field of ichthyofauna or species protection. In addition, the establishment of an interdisciplinary expert team (with knowledge of hydrobiology, ichthyology, hydrology, morphology of river channels, valleys, and fisheries) and the inclusion of representation of the Polish Angling Association, the social side, and local government were called for to cooperate in the development of the program (Expert Analysis, pp. 11-12)[11]. The WWF Poland Foundation has also presented a critical position on the assumptions of the proposed law[12].
Sebastian Wójcik-Jackowski’s assessment of some aspects of the law under discussion seems accurate: “However, it is hard to resist the impression that the regulations in question were drafted too hastily, with the intention – as a remedy to the inaction of the services responsible for water management and environmental protection during the environmental catastrophe that occurred in the summer of 2022 on the Oder River, as indicated by the Supreme Chamber of Control, as well as to other deficiencies found, not necessarily related to the introduction of wastewater.”[13].
The need for a new and completely different regulation of the rules for the protection of the Oder River is also pointed out by the scientific community. Researchers belonging to the National Academy of Sciences, in a communiqué on the ecological catastrophe on the Oder and anthropogenic climate change, appealed, “The ecological catastrophe on the Oder clearly shows that the organisation of water resources management in Poland requires profound changes that will improve its functioning in the areas mentioned above. (…) Regulatory work should be halted, and steps should be taken to renaturalize the Oder, its tributaries and at least parts of its floodplain to increase the river’s buffer capacity and adaptive potential to climate change and other anthropogenic disturbances. (…) The example of the Oder River has shown that it is necessary to change the approach to water resources management in Poland. Therefore, we appeal for:
- increasing public control over water management, which includes enhancing the transparency of decision-making mechanisms and establishing clear rules of institutional accountability for decision-making or lack thereof
- abandoning plans for the development of shipping in favour of the implementation and expansion of the National Surface Water Restoration Program
- creation of a dedicated research and implementation program that would address not only the restoration of life in the Oder River, but also the prevention of similar disasters on the Oder and other Polish rivers in the future
- establishing an independent, apolitical group consisting of scientists, experts, and NGOs that could work on developing directions for adaptive water policy in Poland.”[14]
Probably the most important way to assess the quality of regulation to date is to verify its effects. An important source of information on this subject is the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, which published a report on the state of surface waters in 2020.[15] Page 29 presents an assessment of the condition of the river waters – as much as 98.9% of Poland’s waters are in poor condition:

In terms of revitalizing the Oder River ecosystem, recognized experts, including specialists from the University of Szczecin, recommend “halting the construction or reconstruction of regulatory structures, improving monitoring, initiating renaturalization, and implementing solutions to minimize nutrient runoff and saline water discharges from industry and mining facilities.”[16].
In a very similar vein, the authors of a recent publication titled Social Plan for Oder Restoration – a report on the study of ichthyofauna and malacofauna after the poisoning of the Oder River in 2022 also say: “Any actions should consist mainly of not interfering with the natural processes of ecosystem restoration, e.g., prohibition of fishing for spawners for a few years, abandonment of the construction of further water stages, regulations, and bank fortifications. Of course, these measures should be supplemented with active ecosystem support.” [17]. Unfortunately, the current law is entirely at odds with the latest scientific findings on the restoration of the Oder River ecosystem – urgent systemic change is needed.
When considering the need and purpose of the new law, one cannot ignore the most recent, and fundamentally important regulation for nature conservation within the European Union: Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 24, 2024, on the restoration of natural resources and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869[18].
A statement by Dr. Janez Potočnik, former European Union Commissioner for the Environment and now co-chair of the UN’s International Resource Panel, illustrates well the motive for introducing the regulation: “If someone questions whether we need strong legal protection for nature, what they are actually questioning is that humans are part of nature…. and I think that is not a good position. With the nature protection regulation, we are actually protecting ourselves.”[19]
The new regulation, which countries have two years to implement (National Natural Resource Restoration Plans should be submitted to the Commission by mid-2026), stipulates, among other things, in Article 9, the Restoration of the natural connectivity of rivers and the natural functions of associated flood plains. The current Law on the Revitalization of the Oder River is in total contradiction to the obligation to identify barriers “to be removed in order to contribute to the achievement of the restoration objectives in Article 4 of this Regulation and the goal of restoring at least 25,000 km of rivers in the Union to free-flowing status by 2030” (Article 9.1) and the obligation to remove artificial barriers and then maintain the natural connectivity of rivers and the natural functions of the associated flood plains (Article 9.2-4).
To summarize, a multifaceted analysis of the current state of the law leads to the conclusion that it is necessary to repeal the current law urgently and to introduce a regulation that is in line with the latest scientific research and European Union law. The new law should prioritize the broadly understood welfare of the entire Oder River system, especially in the context of restoring the river after the 2022 disaster and ensuring its future safety. The proposed law meets these demands and indicates an innovative solution grounded in the growing approach of recognizing nature as a legal entity (Rights of Nature), described in the next section of the justification.
- The dynamic development and importance of giving legal subjectivity to the elements of nature in different legal orders, with a special focus on the countries of the European Union
The concept of giving legal subjectivity to nature has been present in Western legal science for over half a century[20]. Christopher Stone’s text “Should Trees Have Standing”[21] remains an important reference point in English-language literature. The author proposed the recognition of nature as a legal entity whose interests would be represented by guardians, in particular, given the possibility of receiving compensation directly on behalf of and for the benefit of nature[22]. A text of similar importance in the circle of German literature remains “Die Rechte der Natur”[23] published in 1988. The reflection around the issues of legal recognition of the subjectivity of nature (Rights of Nature) in recent years is very rich and includes both extensive legal-comparative studies and analyses of individual issues, often conducted within different research approaches.[24] The issues are also increasingly discussed in Poland.[25]
The reason for such a high level of interest among researchers is the dynamic increase in the number of examples of recognizing the legal subjectivity of nature in various legal systems. The most reliable data, updated continuously, can be found at [26] https://ecojurisprudence.org/[27].
The available scientific findings stop at June 2021, which found the existence of 409 initiatives recognizing the legal subjectivity of nature in 39 countries on all continents except Antarctica – which, according to the study’s authors, proves that giving legal subjectivity to nature is a significant, global, and lasting trend towards improving the relationship between humans and nature.[28]
The revolution in the perception of and approach to nature protection is evident in numerous international documents and initiatives seeking solutions based on the recognition of nature’s legal subjectivity. Among the most important UN report (July 29, 2024) presenting recent examples of the recognition of nature’s rights in various legal systems is worth mentioning.[29] The analysis cites, among others, the recognition of the legal subjectivity of the St. Lawrence River in Canada (2023)[30], the declaration of the fundamental rights of the Tins River in Spain (2024)[31], the recognition of the legal subjectivity of the Laje River in Brazil (2023) [32], as well as the Vermelho River (2024)[33].
Critics of this approach sometimes question the effectiveness of these solutions, as there are countries where, despite introducing such regulations, nature protection is still inadequate.[34] The passage of time, the continuing development of the concept, and subsequent judgments in various places around the world dispel these doubts. A good example is the recent decision of a court in Ecuador, which ruled that pollution violates the rights of the Machángara River flowing through the country’s capital (2024).[35]
A crucial document that Poland has also signed is the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, developed at the 15th UN Conference on Biodiversity in 2022[36]. The text identified legal subjectivity to nature as an important element for the effective implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework[37]. The recent Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change also reiterated the importance of giving legal subjectivity to nature for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. [38].
The importance and potential of this new approach to nature conservation is also evidenced by the numerous research projects and practical activities of various entities, often coalitions of organizations, with regional or global reach, which seek the broadest possible recognition of nature’s legal subjectivity. Initiatives of this kind include the “Rights for Aquatic Ecosystems in Europe” campaign[39], the UN-implemented action entitled “Rights of Nature: A Catalyst for the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Agenda on Water[40], efforts for the Recognition of Rights of Nature in Ireland[41],release by the UN of a database of 523 publications and other materials on the issue of the legal subjectivity of nature[42], activities of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature[43], the Earth Law Center activities[44], the CELDF activities[45], the ERC Rivers research project[46], the Riverine Rights research project[47],development of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Rivers supported by more than 100 organizations from more than 20 countries[48], or the activities carried out for the recognition of the rights of nature in the UK[49].
Among the numerous examples of the implementation of legal subjectivity for rivers worldwide, it is worth reviewing the first Whanganui Act in New Zealand[50]. The regulation’s hallmarks include the protection of the entire ecosystem, the recognition of the river as a legal entity, the creation of bicameral representation, the establishment of a strategic committee, and the creation of a space for cooperation and dialogue around caring for the well-being of the river and its associated community[51].
Another model example is the St. Lawrence River in Canada, which has been recognized as a legal entity; a catalog of the River’s fundamental rights has been specified, a diverse group of river guardians has been identified, the tasks of honorary guardians have been defined, and the rules for compensation precisely described[52].
The presence of the rights of nature in Europe is becoming increasingly important. At the level of preparatory work for systemic solutions that apply to all member states, the study Towards an EU Charter on the Fundamental Rights of Nature[53] is worth mentioning. Most important, however, are the examples of recognition of the legal subjectivity of nature in individual countries.
Spain’s Mar Menor lagoon has been polluted for over 30 years and exposed to a severe ecological crisis[54]. Numerous previous regulations have failed to protect this precious ecosystem[55].. In response to this ongoing threat to nature, a citizen’s legislative initiative emerged and very quickly collected more than 639,826 signatures in favor of a new perception and legal protection of the lagoon. Among the many people involved in this grassroots movement, a law professor at the University of Murcia, Teresa Vicente Giménez, played a key role[56].As a result of these efforts, the parliament passed a law in August 2022 granting the Mar Menor Lagoon the status of a legal entity[57]. The foundation of the regulation is the recognition of the lagoon’s legal personality (Article 1) and the definition of the lagoon’s rights (Article 2). Among other things, the law states that the Mar Menor Lagoon has the following rights:
„a) Right to exist and natural development (Derecho a existir como ecosistema y a evolucionar naturalmente): The Mar Menor is subject to a natural order or ecological law that allows it to exist as a lagoon and terrestrial ecosystem in its catchment area. The right to exist means respecting this ecological law to ensure the ecosystem’s balance and regulatory capacity in the face of imbalances caused by pressures from human activities coming mainly from the catchment area.
b) Right to protection (Derecho a la protección): It aims to limit, cease and disallow activities that threaten or harm the ecosystem.
c) Right to conserve diversity (Derecho a la conservación): The right to conserve diversity requires actions to conserve terrestrial and marine species and habitats and manage associated protected natural areas
d) Right to Ecosystem Restoration (Derecho a la restauración): The right to ecosystem restoration requires that, after damage has occurred, corrective actions be taken in the lagoon and its waters that restore natural dynamics and resilience, as well as related ecosystem services.”
The law introduces a coherent system of three interrelated bodies with shared responsibility for protecting lagoon rights: the Committee of Representatives, the Monitoring Commission and the Scientific Committee[58].
The law on the Mar Menor was the first, but not the only and certainly not the last, example of the recognition of legal subjectivity in Europe. In Spain alone, in March 2024, the Serra de Outes city council unanimously approved the Declaration of the Rights of the Tins River, which grants it 10 fundamental rights[59]. Efforts to recognize subjectivity are being vigorously pursued in Ireland[60] and the United Kingdom[61].
The legal subjectivity of nature is recognized in Europe not only through laws but also by the courts. At the time of writing the justification for the law (November 2024), there are at least two judgments recognizing the rights of nature under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the first case, the Erfurt District Court, in its August 2, 2024 judgment in a case involving the so-called diesel scandal, stated, among other things: “The rights of nature that derive from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union strengthen protection [in the context of the “diesel scandal”]. These rights of nature – as in many other legal systems, such as in South America – are to be taken into account ex officio and independently of any relevant statements by the parties or explicit reference to them. (…) These fundamental rights, by their very essence, apply to nature or individual ecosystems – i.e., ecological persons. (…) From the Charter derives the comprehensive right of ecological persons to respect and protect their existence, preservation, and regeneration of their life cycles, structure, functions, and development processes.”[62].
The indicated interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a document recognizing the fundamental rights of nature is all the more significant, because it comes from Judge Dr. Martin Borowsky, who in 2000 collaborated on the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights[63] and also a co-authored one of the most important German commentary on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[64].
The most recent judgment recognizing the subjectivity of the right of nature under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights came on October 17, 2024[65]. First and foremost, the court has consistently recognized the legal subjectivity of nature under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and has stressed the importance of a judicial route for recognizing the rights of nature: “The importance and urgency of ecological challenges – global warming, species extinction, global pollution and resource depletion – and the threat of irreversible damage, as well as planetary boundaries, require the recognition of the specific rights of ecological persons. Such inherent rights of nature have added value compared to current environmental law and point the way out of the ecological crisis of our time.”(28)
According to the court, previous ways of protecting nature have failed (38)[66]. The legal subjectivity of nature in the European legal order is widely advocated in scientific studies (39-41)[67]. Organizations working for the recognition of nature’s legal subjectivity are also growing in importance (42).
The justices of the court recognize that the current processes are the next step in the evolution of legal systems (45): “The legal subjectivity of ecosystems lies in the logic of the development of rights and represents the next logical step in the ‘rights revolution’ (on the subject of previous rights revolutions Steven Pinker, The better angels of our nature: a history o violence and humanity, 2011).” In the past, the granting of legal personality has been associated with the social empowerment and empowerment of those granted subjectivity. This includes expanding the circle of legal persons to include slaves, people of color, women and children, and, in parallel, corporations, foundations, trusts or associations of persons.”[68]
Citing extensive literature and examples from other legal systems, the court emphasizes the importance of the dynamic development of rights of nature in recent years and notes that the European Union’s legal order is open to development in this area (48-50).
It seems crucial to recognize that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allows for an expansive interpretation that takes into account the protection of rights of nature (54): “This broadening approach means that ecological persons, which were previously excluded from legal protection, are now included in the concept of persons.”[69]. The scope of nature’s protection should include, among other things, the right to respect and protect its existence, and preserve and regenerate its life cycles. The court points out that according to a well-established line of case law, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a document open to new interpretations, which must be adapted to changing circumstances (59-60).
According to the court, it is unreasonable that legal entities are afforded broad protection under fundamental rights while ecological persons are left without such protection. It is necessary to treat entities related to human activities, such as corporations, equally with natural ecosystems, such as forests or rivers (65).
The judgment’s reasoning emphasizes that judicial recognition of the rights of nature is frequent (69)[70]; it is also distinguished by its effectiveness, especially given the shortcomings of previous solutions (79)[71].
The court also recognized the well-established role of nature as an intrinsic value in European culture (93). Among other things, it pointed out the compatibility of the recognition of nature’s subjectivity with Church doctrine (94): „In the Christian sense, the laws of nature serve to protect creation. In particular, Franciscan theology is open to their recognition. The Pope’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ calls for a “holistic ecology,” speaks of a “sister” or “mother” of the earth, and reminds us: “The human right to life is meaningless if the ecosystems that sustain humanity have no right to exist.”
In conclusion, both globally and under European law, the trend of giving legal subjectivity to nature is developing rapidly. Recognizing the legal personality of rivers is an increasingly common solution. In the next part of the justification, we present the most important assumptions of the new model of protection and benefits for the Oder River ecosystem.
- New model for legal protection of the Oder River – key assumptions and benefits for the ecosystem
Recognizing the Oder River as a legal entity will help fulfill previous recommendations managing and protecting this ecosystem. Scientists of the National Academy of Sciences pointed out in a communiqué issued after the disaster, among other things: “A well-organized system of water management is characterized by the inclusion of various social groups in decision-making processes, transparency of these processes, clear mechanisms for accountability of water decision-makers and institutions to the public, rapid response of institutions to changing water conditions and water needs, and equitable distribution of costs and benefits associated with the use of water resources by various social groups. The environmental catastrophe on the Oder River clearly demonstrates that the organization of water resources management in Poland requires profound changes to improve its performance in the abovementioned areas.”[72] “Improvement in each of the aforementioned aspects is included in the proposed law, primarily by defining the fundamental rights of the Oder River, establishing a Representative Committee and a Scientific Committee for the Oder River, developing a long-term strategy for the implementation of the river’s fundamental rights, and conducting a multi-stakeholder dialogue around key issues related to the Oder River.
Recognition of the Oder River as a legal entity in conjunction with specific solutions meets the recommendations made in the publication “White Book of Polish Rivers. Lessons from the Oder Disaster” (hereinafter White Paper)[73]. First and foremost, the river is no longer viewed as an economic resource or an inland waterway meant to provide benefits regardless of the costs or damage to the ecosystem.
With the introduction of a clear catalog of fundamental rights, the provision of broad and diverse representation (Committee of Representatives), the inclusion of the most up-to-date state of research (Scientific Committee) in decisions concerning the Oder, and the restoration of the due role of the Ministry of Environment, there will be a real chance to change the current state of affairs, which threatens the safety of people and the ecosystem.
The recent tragic experience of flooding makes the question of how to manage the risk and select optimal strategies for retention and minimization of the effects of such events (which, due to climate change, should be treated as part of the new everyday life, not an anomaly) a top priority. The development of a long-term strategy, taking into account, among other things, the most up-to-date scientific knowledge on effective flood mitigation methods, will allow local communities to function safely while developing biodiversity[74].
Undoubtedly, one of the most important changes concerns the protection of the well-being of the entire Oder River ecosystem, including, among other things, the restoration of its natural functions, its self-cleaning capacity, as well as the introduction of an optimal strategy for restoring the aquatic environment and safeguarding against future ecological disasters. Establishing a Scientific Committee, which together with the Representative Committee, will develop and then monitor the implementation of a long-term strategy for the restoration of the Oder River that acknowledges current scientific knowledge will make it possible to address these priorities. Therefore, recognizing legal personality, creating a catalog of fundamental rights, and establishing effective mechanisms for their implementation will open up opportunities for the river’s recovery.
The primary motive justifying a change in the approach to the Oder River by giving it legal personality is the urgent need to improve water quality. A well-diagnosed problem is the issue of excessive salinity of the river[75]. Almost 20 years ago, in a text entitled “Management of saline fossil waters”, Adam Smolinski wrote: “However, it is estimated that excessive salinization of the Vistula River alone causes losses of $100-250 million per year (Chaber, Krogulski 1997; Management Program… 1992). These amounts are presumed to be very similar to those in the Oder River case . By comparison, a thorough study conducted in the United States for the Colorado River, which has a salinity of 0.5 g/dm3, showed that economic activity losses amount to $310 million annually. Such large economic losses, as well as the often irreversible degradation of the environment, force us to fight against the increasing salinity of rivers every day.”[76] Unfortunately, his words have lost none of their relevance. Current research compiled by the World Bank shows that the problem of water salinity is of great importance, among other things, for agriculture, because: “the amount of food lost each year due to salty waters is enough to feed 170 mil people each day.”[77].
Existing regulations remain very far from solving the problem, sometimes outright encouraging river pollution.[78] . The proposed law will facilitate the implementation of new technologies that will improve the environment by reducing pollution levels at the source [79].This strategy is a much more effective than possibly rebuilding the ecosystem after another disaster. According to World Bank experts: “Meeting environmental standards is costly and may require investments in cleaner technologies, changes in production techniques or more costly ways to dispose of waste. Where compliance costs exceed the anticipated consequences of non-compliance, companies will view the risk of incurring a penalty as a cost of doing business.”[80].
The World Bank recommends new regulations tied to strict monitoring of water quality. The law recognizes the Oder as a separate entity, defining a catalog of fundamental rights, including the right to be pollution-free. The Committee of Representatives, taking into account the expertise of the Oder Scientific Committee, will conclude agreements on the permitted scope of economic use of the Oder’s resources. This mechanism will allow for the evaluation and strict control of the cumulative environmental impacts exerted by various entities. In addition, it will ensure, in accordance with the EU standards in force in Poland and the new law on the restoration of natural resources, that the balance and well-being of the Oder ecosystem will be a priority.
II. Differences between the existing and the proposed state and detailed justification of the proposed solutions
In the second part, we present the individual solutions of the Bill along with their justifications.
Article 1 Granting legal personality to the Oder River
The granting of legal personality to the Oder River marks a fundamental change in the rules regarding the entire ecosystem’s perception, functioning and legal protection. In legal terms, the river ceases to be an object and acquires the status of an independent legal entity. In practice, this means that the fundamental rights of the river (described in Article 3, see on the subject below) can be directly protected, with the Representative Committee acting in the interests of the Oder River.
Numerous examples and the general importance of giving legal subjectivity to nature have already been pointed out in part one of the justification. The current legal order assumes that the Oder River is an object in the eyes of the law and, therefore, has no rights of its own and can be freely used. The priority of the legal system is to protect economic interests, and the interests of nature do not have an independent legal status and cannot be acknowledged to the same extent. In practice, this leads to very unsatisfactory results in protecting nature, on whose existence and well-being we humans are directly dependent.
Natalie Bennett, a member of the House of Lords who supports introducing the laws of nature into the UK legal order, rightly noted: “Our economy, our lives are completely dependent on Nature. Simply put, there are no jobs on a dead planet, and if we don’t take care of Nature’s rights, there is a serious risk that this is where we are headed.”[81].
At this point, it is worth noting the results of research on the possibility of introducing the protection of fundamental rights of nature at the level of the European Union[82]. Mumta Ito, founder of Nature’s Rights[83], author of a draft EU directive recognizing subjective rights of nature[84], and co-author of one of the most important studies on the subject[85], , opening a conference at the European Parliament in March 2017, “Nature’s Rights: the Missing Piece of the Puzzle,” noted: “There is a deep flaw in our legal system, which treats living beings as objects or property, while it treats corporations – a form of property – as legal entities with legal personality and rights. This drives an economic paradigm that is coupled with the destruction of nature. If we are to separate our economy from the destruction of nature, we need a law that recognizes the intrinsic value of nature. The way to achieve this is through legal personality, recognition of nature’s rights, and a legal framework compatible with ecology to sustain life.”[86].
A perfect illustration of this issue is a comparison of two models, the first on the left showing the current model of sustainable development; the second, on the right, showing the situation after taking into account the subjective rights of nature[87]:
A global-scale eperience of biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation in the context of the Oder River, particularly in the face of the 2022 environmental catastrophe and the failure to improve water levels, shows that protecting the river in the current model does not work. Taking into account the subjective rights of nature means that we stop seeing the interests of nature, society, and the economy as competing with each other and requiring the search for a balance between them (which most often leads to a state in which the interests of the economy gain dominant status over both nature and the protection of human rights). Instead, we see that we all depend on nature; it is, in fact, the only system that can function independently. Therefore, it is in the long-term interest of communities, economic actors, and nature to recognize and address the interdependence of these systems and give them appropriate legal weight. This will ensure that each of the areas identified – the well-being of nature, communities, and economic development – can be sustained in the future.
Thus, we propose adopting a new model in which the Oder River will become an independent rights holder, ensuring that it can protect its own rights and function in legal transactions on the same basis as corporations, foundations, or associations have for many years.[88]. Adopting this solution requires recognition that the welfare of present and future generations and the interests of nature as a whole, in this case, the fundamental rights of the Oder River, are more important than short-term economic gains.[89]. In the face of the failure of existing protection mechanisms, granting legal personality to the Oder River seems necessary.
Article 2 Definition and Boundaries of the Oder River
To ensure its complete protection, the entire ecosystem of the Oder River is defined to include both the river (within the borders of the Republic of Poland) and the Oder River valley, along with all organisms living in the river and the valley area.
The Oder River and the Oder River Valley require protection, planning, and implementation of solutions that take into account both the individual elements and the ecosystem as a whole. The law indicates that the Oder River is a geographic, biological, and hydrological unit that includes flowing surface waters; bottom sediments, aquifers, and tributary recharge; the river bed, banks, and floodplains; and organisms living in the river, including species of flora and fauna. The Oder River Valley is understood as a geographic natural unit and an ecosystem supporting the functioning of the river, including areas associated with its natural hydrological, environmental, and biological processes, including floodplains, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems.
By taking into account precise definitions, the Committee of Representatives and the Scientific Committee can develop a comprehensive strategy for ensuring the well-being of the Oder River, including, above all, the realization of its fundamental rights, taking into account, among other things, the issues of restoring the stability of the ecosystem after the 2022 disaster, ensuring effective retention and flood protection, and, above all, improving water quality until it achieves good status.
Article 3 Basic Rights of the Oder River
Defining the catalog of fundamental rights of nature, particularly a river or other aquatic ecosystem, takes different forms depending on the legal order. The growing practical importance of the issue also makes the topic an area of in-depth research reflection.[90]. Some of the more important points of reference include:
- Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution, indicating in Articles 71 and 72 that Nature has the right to exist, the right to maintain and regenerate its life cycles, structure, functions, and processes, and the right to restore.[91].
- Draft EU directive recognizing the subjectivity of nature, in particular the individual rights of nature listed in Article 4(1) and (2).[92].
- A law recognizing the Whanganui River as a legal entity, particularly Article 12 and Article 14[93]
- A law recognizing the Mar Menor lagoon as a subject of rights (see description of this regulation in Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)
- Bill to recognize the legal personality of the St. Lawrence River in Canada[94]
- Declaration of fundamental rights of rivers[95]
- Law recognizing the legal entity of the Klamath River in the United States[96]
Given the existing arrangements, the law provides for a catalog of Oder’s fundamental rights in Article 3, including the right to:
- Existence – which means being able to operate safely over a long term, without worrying about deteriorating water quality or disappearing biodiversity. For example, the risk of another environmental disaster threatens the Oder River’s right to exist.
- Free flow – the restoration of river’s natural connectivity and the natural functions of the associated flood plains (see Article 9 of the Regulation of June 24, 2024, on the restoration of natural resources[97]) is an environmental priority of the European Union. Granting the Oder River the right to free flow promotes ecosystem recovery from the 2022 disaster and minimizes the risk of its recurrence.[98].
- Natural evolution as an ecosystem and to perform the functions necessary within this ecosystem – protecting the Oder River at the ecosystem level is essential.[99]. It is worth emphasizing the Scientific Committee’s leading role in defining this law’s content.[100].
- Preservation of native biodiversity – especially after the environmental catastrophe of 2022, it has become a challenge to ensure the restoration of the original biodiversity, which is heavily threatened by invasive species[101]
- Regeneration of its resources – means, among other things, the right to self-purification and restoration of good water quality in the shortest possible time.
- Feeding and being fed by aquifers and tributaries – for the healthy and natural functioning of the Oder River ecosystem, the issue of connectivity to both its tributaries and the valley is very important [102]
- Protection from unauthorized interference, in particular, the right to freedom from pollution – the primary goal of the law being introduced is to ensure adequate protection and improve the quality of the waters of the Oder River ecosystem. It is known that the existing solutions in this regard are inadequate (cf. Part 1 of the law’s justification).
- Damage compensation – thanks to the granting of legal personality, Odra obtains the independent right to seek compensation for damage caused, which will positively affect the actions of other entities.
- Protection of its resources – the Law indicates that the Oder River’s resources are its property and emphasizes the possibility of protecting the property under the general rules of the Civil Code. The Oder River’s resources include, in particular, its water, bottom sediments, aquifers, fauna and flora, and other elements of its ecosystem.
Article 4 Economic and Recreational Use of the Oder River
The bill introduces an innovative solution for determining the scope of economic and recreational use of the Oder River. Economic use of the Oder River will be possible only on the basis of and to the extent established by agreements between the interested party and the Representative Committee acting on behalf of the Oder River. The law introduces the principle of proportionality as a mechanism for setting limits on permissible agreements (Article 4.4). Specifically, this means that the use of the Oder River to the extent that it may affect its fundamental rights will only be permitted in the event of (1) implementation of a legitimate purpose (e.g., agriculture, fishing), (2) another socially acceptable use of the river, or (3) actions taken in the public interest. An entity planning to enter into an agreement with the Committee of Representatives must demonstrate that the use of the river is necessary for such a purpose. In addition, it will be incumbent on such an entity to prove that another action to ensure the protection of the Oder River’s rights to a greater extent could not have been taken – and therefore that, among the many options considered, the solution chosen is the one that least affects the river’s fundamental rights.
The Committee of Representatives will decide on the agreements’ conclusion and scope in consultation with the Oder Scientific Committee, which is tasked with providing the most up-to-date knowledge on how best to protect the Oder River’s fundamental rights.
It is worth noting that recreational use of the Oder River does not require an agreement with the Representative Committee, as long as it does not violate the river’s fundamental rights listed in Article 3. Thus, activities such as swimming, canoeing, fishing (in accordance with the recommendations of the Scientific Committee), and nature observation can be freely carried out (Article 4.2).
The essence of the solution in question boils down to making decisions on the use of the Oder River that considers its fundamental rights listed in Article 3, based on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. In other words, the Oder River, in the eyes of the law, ceases to be treated as an object – the real change resulting from its status as a legal entity lies in the ability to agree with other entities on the scope of the use of its resources, giving priority to the welfare of the entire Oder River ecosystem on which people and the economy depend.
Moreover, the adopted design mobilizes and encourages other actors to seek solutions that are in line with the long-term interests of all stakeholders, i.e., nature, communities, as well as business entities or government entities.[103].
The effectiveness of protecting Oder’s fundamental rights through agreements made directly by stakeholders with the Committee of Representatives can be much higher than that known from current mechanisms.
First, the issue of prevention, that is, protecting the ecosystem from harm that may result from the cumulative environmental impacts of various entities, becomes crucial. Second, voluntary agreements that take into account the fundamental rights of the Oder increase the chances that river users will change their actions, recognizing the value in adhering to jointly developed agreements based on sound scientific data on ecosystem protection.
This is an important complement to the model of imposing financial penalties once the damage to the ecosystem has already occurred – the latter solution, by its very nature, creates a space for the calculation of profits and losses for the economic entity, the effect of which too often leads to the conclusion that it is in the economic interest of the entity to poison the river.[104].
Article 5 Representation of Odra
Recognizing a river as a legal entity means identifying the persons who will act on its behalf (as in the case of a number of other legal entities, appropriate bodies, such as the Board of Directors of a Company or Association, are most often appointed to represent them).
The solutions used in this regard in the world take different forms. There are two guardians on behalf of the Whanganui River, one of whom is designated by the state and the other by the indigenous community[105]; the protection of the rights of the Mar Menor lagoon is jointly exercised by three bodies – the 13-member Committee of Representatives (which includes representatives of the administration and the local community), the Monitoring Commission and the Scientific Committee[106]; the protection of the rights of the St. Lawrence River in Canada is exercised by a total of seven guardians, including, among others, representatives of the government administration, NGOs working on behalf of the river, and representatives of indigenous communities.[107].
The bill provides for establishing a 15-member Oder Representative Committee to represent the interests of the Oder River in its dealings with the environment. The committee should act in the best interests of the river, primarily in protecting the Oder’s fundamental rights. The people on the committee must not have a conflict of interest with respect to the river’s rights and should have the necessary knowledge, experience and willingness to act for the Oder.
The proposed composition of the Committee ensures the representation of various groups, entities, and communities that are key to ensuring the well-being of the river’s ecosystem. The Committee shall be appointed within 30 days of the Law’s entry into force by the Minister responsible for the environment, who shall name one of the representatives of the Oder River. Another two persons will be proposed by the State Water Holding- Polish Waters, which has expertise and experience in caring for the quality of Poland’s waters.[108]. Three people each will be nominated by representatives of local governments through which the Oder River flows and by the most important groups of river users (e.g., representatives of local communities, the recreation and tourism sector, the agricultural sector, or entrepreneurs). Six people will be nominated by social organizations involved in environmental protection and regional development and representatives of an initiative group promoting and leading a legislative initiative to recognize the legal personality of the Oder River.
Research clearly shows that transferring responsibility for protecting environmental quality to local communities yields the best results. The conclusions of an analysis of 169 examples of different forms of taking care of nature, published in 2021, are as follows: “We find a clear contrast between the results obtained by externally controlled conservation and those obtained by locally controlled efforts. Most importantly, the majority of the studies showing positive results for both well-being and conservation come from cases where Indigenous peoples and local communities play a central role, such as when they have significant influence over decision-making (…) Our findings suggest that equitable conservation that strengthens and supports environmental stewardship by Indigenous peoples and local communities is a major pathway to effective long-term biodiversity conservation, especially when supported more broadly by law and policy.”[109].
The tasks of the Representative Committee are listed in Article 4, para. 7 and include, among others, protecting the interests of the Oder River in proceedings before courts or administrative bodies; concluding agreements on the scope of the river’s use; developing and then monitoring the implementation of a long-term strategy to protect the river’s rights and restore its ecosystem; cooperating and conducting multi-stakeholder dialogue around issues of importance to the Oder River; conducting educational activities; or, finally, preparing annual activity reports and managing the Oder River’s assets.
Article 6 Oder Scientific Committee
The Oder Scientific Committee which consists of 10 people, is the advisory body of the Committee of Representatives. The introduction of this type of entity is a standard solution, appearing in the regulation of the Mar Menor Lagoon[110], or the law, giving legal subjectivity to the St. Lawrence River in Canada.[111].
The task of the Oder Scientific Committee is to provide the most up-to-date and reliable scientific knowledge to protect the fundamental rights of the river, in particular, to collaborate in developing a long-term strategy for the Oder River and to assess the consequences of violations of fundamental rights, if any. Implementing effective protection in a model that gives subjectivity and fundamental rights to the elements of nature requires the active participation of experts and researchers who can adequately interpret concepts fundamental to this protection, such as the right to free flow, the right to natural evolution, and perform functions necessary within the ecosystem, or the right to preserve native biodiversity.[112].
Articles 7,8,9 – Internal organization of the Oder River authorities; acquisition of inheritances, bequests,and donations, and prohibition of business activities of the Oder River.
According to Article 7, the Oder River bodies (Representative Committee, Scientific Committee) will operate on the basis of their own statutes and bylaws. These documents will, in particular, specify the forms of decision-making, the structure of the body, and the powers of individual persons.
Article 8 indicates that the Oder’s property acquisition through bequests, legacies, donations, or other sources is exempt from taxation. Funds transferred in this way would supplement Odra’s assets, which are managed by the Representative Committee.
Article 9 excludes the possibility of economic activities across the Oder River. This underscores the river’s overarching nature as an ecosystem and excludes the highly complex and difficult-to-evaluate questions regarding the possible scope of the activity.[113].
Article 10 Rules of liability in case of violation of the Oder’s rights
The bill assumes that, through increased awareness and agreements reached by the Committee of Representatives, preventive measures – the most effective form of protection – will reduce the threat to the Oder River ecosystem.
However, since damage cannot be ruled out, the law provides a precise mechanism for action in this situation. In the event of a violation of the Oder’s fundamental rights (in particular, by altering its physical, chemical, or biological properties, its ecological functions, or its quantitative state), the Representative Committee may bring an action against the perpetrator of the damage on behalf of the Oder. The first goal of the action is to restore the Oder to its original state or a state close to it; only if this is not possible, to repair the damage by paying compensation.
Furthermore, in the event of repeated violation or gross negligence, in addition to reparation of damages under the previously described rules, the law provides for a supplementary financial penalty proportional to the value of the damage caused to the river and also taking into account the value of the benefits that the perpetrator has achieved by his actions.
The law specifies that the extent of the damage will be assessed in relation to the initial state of the ecosystem, determined on the basis of all available historical, scientific, and environmental data prior to the event causing the violation of the rights of the Oder River. A vital role in this regard falls to the Oder River Scientific Committee, which, in the event of damage, provides an opinion on the causes of the damage, the extent of the damage, and the appropriate forms of corrective action or value assessment. The law emphasizes that in the case of damage committed by several entities, their liability is joint and several.
An important addition to the overall protection of the Oder River is the introduction of liability for damage caused by the prolonged and/or dispersed actions of multiple actors. In this situation, liability is distributed proportionally among all perpetrators of the damage. As in the case of damage of a one-time event, the Oder River Scientific Committee provides guidelines on the best way to repair the damage or the possible valuation of the compensation value and the impact of the various actors on the damage. In compensation proceedings, the Representatives Committee represents the Oder River under the rules established in its statutes and regulations.
Article 11 Exclusion of Odra’s liability for damages
The law specifies that the Oder River is not liable for damages resulting from the performance of natural functions, including but not limited to natural flow, flooding, or drought. This solution is found in some jurisdictions, such as the law granting legal personality to the St. Lawrence River.[114]. All stakeholders, especially the government and local government units, can take measures to reduce the risk of such damage, taking into account the fundamental rights of the Oder River indicated in Article 3.
The situation in which a specific entity has rights while its liability remains excluded is often encountered and does not raise systemic questions. The rationale of the October 2024 German court ruling, which recognized the subjectivity of nature under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, addresses this issue as follows: “The granting of rights does not necessarily imply the imposition of obligations, such as a liability system. For example, infants or people in a vegetative state certainly enjoy rights, but no legal obligations are imposed on them. In any case, the imposition of duties implies autonomy, which does not exist on the side of nature.”[115].
Article 12 Funding
The law indicates that the Minister of the Environment shall provide the funding necessary to achieve its objectives, primarily the protection of fundamental rights and the operation of the Oder River authorities.
At this point, it is imperative to emphasize that the July 2023 law provided in Article 24.1 for a maximum expenditure limit of PLN 1,234,279,661 as the financial effect of the law’s entry into force. The costs associated with the current proposed solution fall within the above range.
Article 13 The Minister of the Environment is to supervise the activities of the Oder River.
A significant and oft-repeated demand (see Part 1 of the justification) was to transfer the issue of protecting the Oder River from the hands of the Ministry of Infrastructure (which sees the river as an object, a waterway, or a resource for pursuing economic interests) to the Ministry of Environment.
The current law introduces this solution, indicating that the Minister of the Environment will supervise the Oder River’s activities, including its representative and advisory bodies. This will bring the Oder River back to the forefront as a natural ecosystem with its legal subjectivity and precisely defined fundamental rights.
Article 14 Representation of the Oder River in international relations
Since the Oder is a transboundary river, an important part of caring for its welfare is the representation of the river’s interests in international relations. This task will be the responsibility of the Government of the Republic of Poland, which should consult with the Committee of Representatives on the protection and management of the river.
Article 15 Entities responsible for achieving the goals of the Act
The draft stipulates that an important role in implementing the regulations will fall to the Ministry of the Environment and the State Water Holding- Polish Waters. These entities already play a key role in water management. In order to ensure the consistency of the entire system and the smoothest possible application of the new model for the protection of the Oder River, support and cooperation are needed among all entities that can act for the effective application of the Act’s provisions.
III. Anticipated social, economic, and legal effects of the law
In the third part of the justification, we briefly outline the Law’s anticipated social, economic, and legal effects. Determining all the effects is challenging from the current perspective. However, it is worth emphasizing that we do not see any threats or adverse effects of the regulation, and the uncertainty concerns only the assessment of the full range of positive effects of the law.
- Social impact
Among the positive social impacts, it is important to point out the improvement of water quality and, consequently, the improvement of the quality of life of some 16 million people living within the river ecosystem. Given that access to clean water is one of the fundamental human rights, the positive impact of regulation is evident.[116].
Moreover, by recognizing the Oder’s subjectivity and giving it fundamental rights, there will be increased awareness and empowerment of local communities, who will be able to participate, to a greater than at present extent, in the efforts to improve the river’s welfare.
Within the framework of planned undertakings, The Committee of Representatives and the Scientific Committee should develop a long-term strategy for the Oder River, including activities related to strengthening local communities associated with the river.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the new approach to the protection of the entire Oder River ecosystem will increase biodiversity, create new habitats for various groups of animals, and reduce the effects of hydrological drought and floods that are very likely in the coming years.
One of the biggest social challenges (of equal economic importance) related to the Oder River is the issue of flood protection. The implementation of the law will significantly contribute to the preservation, restoration, and recovery of natural retention capacities, thereby improving the flood safety of the Oder Valley. Floodplains, i.e., areas where the river could safely and naturally periodically flood, contributing to both the reduction of flood wave effects and the development of biodiversity, currently amount to only 27% of their original area[117]. It is essential to seek effective solutions that comply with European Union law (including the new Regulation on the Restoration of Natural Resources[118]).
Experts point out that “Modern flood risk management is not about preventing all river flooding, but, among other things, about ensuring that rivers flood in such places and in such a way as to minimize the negative impact of such flooding on people, the environment, cultural heritage, and the economy. River restoration can contribute to flood risk management understood in this way. It should be remembered here that the surge and flooding of a river can paradoxically contribute to reducing flood risk. A situation where water can burst the riverbed and spill over the floodplain without causing significant flood damage can reduce flood risk in areas hydrographically downstream – where the extent of flooding can then decrease, which in the case of built-up areas can be important. Spreading river water on the floodplain flattens the flood surge downstream, and dissipates the water’s energy, which can reduce the damage it causes. From the point of view of the effectiveness of improving the conditions for the flow of floodwaters within embanked river valleys where the flood zone has been artificially reduced, natural flood retention should be restored by removing embankments or creating polders in a cascade system.”[119]
- Economic impact
The new regulation introduces an innovative mechanism for agreeing on the scope of use of the Oder River through agreements concluded on behalf of the river by the Committee of Representatives based on the recommendations of the Oder Scientific Committee. This means that thanks to the introduced regulation, economic entities using the river’s resources will get an important impetus for developing and implementing new technologies conducive to both production optimization and environmental protection. Remembering the severe costs associated with poor water quality, including reduced food production, is imperative. The new regulation will reduce these risks.[120].
Furthermore, improvement water quality and the Oder River ecosystem will significantly contribute to the economic development of the tourism sector and the closely related food service sector. Numerous recreational activities, including canoeing, bicycle tours, and educational visits to the clean Oder River are also likely to develop.
- Legal implications
The primary legal effect will be to provide adequate protection for the Oder River ecosystem. By granting the river legal personality, it will gain new opportunities to function in legal transactions, including consenting to agreements on the scope of use of its resources or going to court to defend its fundamental rights. On an important side note, it is worth noting that, through the adoption of the regulation, Poland will join the group of countries that are leaders in effective nature protection mechanisms.
IV. Anticipated financial implications and sources of funding
Funding to achieve the goals of the law, which are primarily the protection of the fundamental rights of the Oder River listed in Article 3 and the effective functioning of the appointed Oder River bodies (the Representative Committee and the Scientific Committee), will be provided by the Minister of the Environment.
The costs associated with implementing the solutions described in the law fall within the scope of the existing Law of July 13, 2023, on the Revitalization of the Oder River (Journal of Laws 2023, item 1963), will not exceed the amount indicated in Article 24.1, and should be at the disposal of the Minister of Environment.
Author: Dr Stanisław Kordasiewicz
Download the justification in pdf:
[1] European Commission. Joint Research Centre., Unijna analiza katastrofy ekologicznej na Odrze w 2022 r.: wnioski i zalecenia w celu uniknięcia szkód ekologicznych w rzekach UE w przyszłości, wspólna analiza DG ds. Środowiska, Wspólnego Centrum Badawczego i Europejskiej Agencji Środowiska. (LU: Publications Office, 2023), 3, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/536489.
[2] https://ios.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Wstepny-raport-zespolu-ds.-sytuacji-na-rzece-Odrze.pdf
[3]Social Plan for Oder River Restoration – report on ichthyofauna and malacofauna surveys after the poisoning of the Oder River in 2022,p.20 ( Społeczny Plan odnowy Odry – raport z badań ichtiofauny i malakofauny po zatruciu Odry w 2022 r., s. 20). Retrieved from http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/SPOLECZNY_PLAN_ODNOWY_ODRY_raport_final_druk.pdf
[4] https://nms.usz.edu.pl/cenna-publikacja-w-science-of-the-total-environment-dotyczaca-katastrofy-odrzanskiej-w-2022-roku/
[5]Social Plan for Oder River Restoration – report on ichthyofauna and malacofauna surveys after the poisoning of the Oder River in 2022,Retrieved from http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/SPOLECZNY_PLAN_ODNOWY_ODRY_raport_final_druk.pdf
[6] There, p. 67-68.
[7] Zyman i Madej, „Kryzys ekologiczny na Odrze – spóźnione działania podmiotów publicznych”, p. 47.
[8] Document developed by the Client Earth Lawyers for the Earth Foundation, Frank Bold Foundation, Greenmind Foundation, National Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF Poland Foundation, Retrived from https://www.wwf.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/biala_ksiega_polskich_rzek.pdf
[9] Compare the data presented in the second draft update of the Oder River Basin Management Plan : https://apgw.gov.pl/static/cms/doc/2021/Odra/Projekt_IIaPGW_OD_ODRA.pdf
[10] See also a separate report Szymalski W., Wisniewski J. (eds). 2020 – Shipping or rail? Perspectives for sustainable transport in Poland until 2050. Report of the WWF Poland Foundation. Warsaw
[11] The full content of the expert analysis of the Oder River Revitalization Bill is available for download here: https://frankbold.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/fb_specustawa_odrzanska_nie_broni_odry_przed_katastrofa.pdf
[12] https://www.wwf.pl/stanowisko-fundacji-wwf-polska-ws-rzadowych-planow-odbudowy-odry
[13] Sebastian Wójcik-Jackowski, „Wątpliwości prawne związane z kontrolą gospodarowania wodami w świetle ustawy o rewitalizacji rzeki Odry na tle historycznym”, Prawne Problemy Górnictwa i Ochrony Środowiska, nr 2 (Nov. 8, 2024): p. 36, https://doi.org/10.31261/PPGOS.2024.02.04.
[14] The full communiqué available here: https://pan.pl/katastrofa-na-odrze-geneza-terazniejszosc-zalecenia-na-przyszlosc/
[15] The full raport available here: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/pms/monitoring_wod/Synteza_ocena_stanu_wod_powierzchniowych_2014-2019r.pdf
[16] The quoted excerpt is from information on a new scientific publication of the Institute of Marine and Environmental Sciences of the University of Szczecin: https://nms.usz.edu.pl/cenna-publikacja-w-science-of-the-total-environment-dotyczaca-katastrofy-odrzanskiej-w-2022-roku/. Szlauer-Łukaszewska, A., Ławicki, Ł., Engel, J., Drewniak, E., Ciężak, K., & Marchowski, D. (2024). Quantifying a mass mortality event in freshwater wildlife within the Lower Odra River: Insights from a large European river. Science of The Total Environment, 907, 167898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167898.
[17] The full report, including key recommendations (pp. 67-74), available here: http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/SPOLECZNY_PLAN_ODNOWY_ODRY_raport_final_druk.pdf
[18] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401991
[19]Short footage available here: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en
[20] Many indigenous communities have recognized the subjectivity of nature since time immemorial; their knowledge, experience and wisdom were also important for the legal recognition of nature’s subjectivity. However, nature is an established value in European culture as well. It is worth exercising caution in making general assertions about the links between the laws of nature and the philosophies of indigenous communities, as there is a great risk of shallowing the latter. for reference see i.e. Mihnea Tănăsescu, „Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies”, Transnational Environmental Law 9, nr 3 (Nov. 2020): 429–53, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102520000217; Gabriel Eckstein i in., „Conferring Legal Personality on the World’s Rivers: A Brief Intellectual Assessment”, Water International 44, nr 6–7 (Oct3, 2019): 5–7, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1631558; Anne Salmond, Gary Brierley, i Dan Hikuroa, „Let the Rivers Speak: Thinking about Waterways in Aotearoa New Zealand”, Policy Quarterly 15, nr 3 (Aug.26,2019): 49, https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v15i3.5687; Miriama Cribb, Elizabeth Macpherson, i Axel Borchgrevink, „Beyond Legal Personhood for the Whanganui River: Collaboration and Pluralism in Implementing the Te Awa Tupua Act”, The International Journal of Human Rights, (Feb16,2024) 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2314532.
[21] Christopher D. Stone, „Should Trees Have Standing – Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects”, Southern California Law Review 45 (1972): 450–501.
[22]More on the Christopera Stone’s concepts in here: Christopher D. Stone, Should trees have standing? law, morality, and the environment, 3rd ed (New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, 2010); Markku Oksanen i Anne Kumpula, „Close Reading Stone: Investigating the Seminal Article”, w Rights of Nature (Routledge, 2021).
[23] Jörg Leimbacher, Die Rechte der Natur, Neue Literatur zum Recht (Basel: Helbing u. Lichtenhahn, 1988).
[24] Worth mentioning, among others: Alban Krashi i in., „The Rights of Nature: A call for a policy of mutually assured flourishing”, People, Place and Policy Online,(Oct. 25, 2024):82–96, https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.2024.6728445459; Yenny Vega Cárdenas i Daniel Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World (Montréal, 2023); David Takacs, „We are the river”, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 2021 (2021): 545–606; Daniel P. Corrigan i Markku Oksanen, red., Rights of Nature: A Re-Examination, Routledge Explorations in Environmental Studies (London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021); Craig M. Kauffman i Pamela L. Martin, The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future (The MIT Press, 2021), https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13855.001.0001; Jenny García Ruales, Katarina Hovden, i Helen Kopnina, Rights of Nature in Europe: Encounters and Visions (Abingdon, Oxon, 2024); Right of Rivers, „Right-of-Rivers-Report”, 2021, https://3waryu2g9363hdvii1ci666p-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2020/09/Right-of-Rivers-Report-V3-Digital-compressed.pdf; David R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World (Toronto: ECW Press, 2017).
[25] Jerzy Bieluk, „River as a Legal Person”, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 29, nr 2 (Jun.21, 2020): 11, https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2020.29.2.11-23; Samanta Kowalska, „Natural law and the rights of nature – in search of more effective environmental protection”, Przegląd Prawniczy Uniwersytetu im. Adam Mickiewicza 15 (Dec.30, 2023): 273–92, https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2023.15.13; Samanta Kowalska, „Prawa przyrody w ochronie środowiska i wzmacnianiu bezpieczeństwa ekologicznego”(Rights of Nature in Environmental Protection and Strengthening Environmental Security). Studia Prawnicze KUL, nr 2 (Jun.20, 2023): 43–61, https://doi.org/10.31743/sp.13976 ; Widła, B. (2022), Prawa natury? Własność i podmiotowość prawna w antropocenie,( Rights of nature? Property and legal subjectivity in the Anthropocene) in: Jasikowska, K., Pałasz, M. (red.), Za pięć dwunasta koniec świata. Kryzys klimatyczno-ekologiczny głosem wielu nauk. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, p. 513–539. https://za512.uj.edu.pl/;
[26] For freshwater ecosystems, there are, at the time of writing, 65 regulations in force (https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/?_ejm_eactor=freshwater-ecosystem&_ejm_status=approved).
Similar statements with additional information are also available at: http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/rightsOfNature/ also https://observatoirenature.org/observatorio/en/interactive-map/
[27]For freshwater ecosystems, there are, at the time of writing, 65 regulations in force (https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/?_ejm_eactor=freshwater-ecosystem&_ejm_status=approved).
Similar statements with additional information are also available at: p://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/rightsOfNature/ ans https://observatoirenature.org/observatorio/en/interactive-map/
[28] Alex Putzer in., „Putting the rights of nature on the map. A quantitative analysis of rights of nature initiatives across the world”, Journal of Maps 18, nr 1 (Jan. 1, 2022): 89–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2079432.
[29] For full report: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/223/84/pdf/n2422384.pdf
[30] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/first-nations-resolution-recognizing-the-rights-of-the-st-lawrence-river/
[31] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/town-of-serra-de-outes-galicia-spain-declaration-of-the-rights-of-the-tins-river/
[32] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/guajara-mirim-brazil-municipal-law-recognizing-the-rights-of-the-laje-river/
[33] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/municipality-of-goias-brazil-law-on-the-rights-of-the-vermelho-river/
[34] Jan Darpö, „CAN NATURE GET IT RIGHT? A Study on Rights of Nature”, 2021,
Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/689328/IPOL_STU(2021)689328_EN.pdf
[35] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/ecuador-court-case-on-the-rights-of-the-machangara-river/
[36] https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
[37] Section C: “Both nature and nature’s contributions to people are vital for human existence and good quality of life, including human well-being, living in harmony with nature, and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth. The Framework recognizes and considers these diverse value systems and concepts, including, for those countries that recognize them, rights of nature and rights of Mother Earth, as being an integral part of its successful implementation”
[38] https://www.einpresswire.com/article/762953083/at-cop-29-mother-earth-centric-actions-were-recognized-as-a-non-market-approach-for-delivering-climate-justice
[39] https://www.garneurope.org/rights-for-aquatic-ecosystems-in-europe/
[40] https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/rights-nature-catalyst-implementation-sustainable-development-agenda-water#description
[41] Rachel Killean, Jérémie Gilbert, i Peter Doran, „Rights of Nature on the Island of Ireland: Origins, Drivers, and Implications for Future Rights of Nature Movements”, Transnational Environmental Law 13, nr 1 (March, 2024): 35–60, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000201.
[42] http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/references/
[44] https://www.earthlawcenter.org/
[45] https://celdf.org/rights-of-nature/
[46] https://rivers-ercproject.eu/
[47] https://www.oslomet.no/en/research/research-projects/riverine-rights
[48] https://www.rightsofrivers.org
[49] https://www.natures-rights.org/uk-bill
[50] Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, For the full bill check here:: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/096be8ed81e0a57e.pdf
[51] On the subject among others:: Christopher Rodgers, „A New Approach to Protecting Ecosystems: The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017”, Environmental Law Review 19, nr 4 (Dec. 2017): 266–79, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452917744909; Salmond, Brierley, i Hikuroa, „Let the Rivers Speak”; Jacinta Ruru, „Indigenous Ancestors: Recognizing Legal Personality of Nature as a Reconciliation Strategy for Connective Sustainable Governance”, w The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development, red. Sumudu A. Atapattu, Carmen G. Gonzalez, i Sara L. Seck, 1.ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2021), 183–95, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108555791.015; Katherine Sanders, „‘Beyond Human Ownership’? Property, Power and Legal Personality for Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand”, Journal of Environmental Law, (Nov. 20, 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqx029; Cribb, Macpherson, i Borchgrevink, „Beyond Legal Personhood for the Whanganui River”.
[52] For this and other examples check: Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World.
[53] European Economic and Social Committee. i in., Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature: Study. (LU: Publications Office, 2020), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2864/25113.
[54] https://especiales.datadista.com/medioambiente/desastre-mar-menor/eng/
[55] Ludwig Krämer, „Rights of Nature in Europe: The Spanish Lagoon Mar Menor Becomes a Legal Person”, Infocommunications Journal, nr 1/2 (Jan. 2023): 5–23, https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-20010003.
[56] Of this author: The Mar Menor: an ecosystem with its own rights, s. 438-445 w: Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World.
[57] Ley 19/2022, de 30 de septiembre, para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica a la laguna del Mar Menor y su cuenca. «BOE» núm. 237, de 3 de octubre de 2022 https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2022/09/30/19 ; For english version of the bill check https://www.um.es/documents/23559040/35080450/LEY+19_2022+IN+ENGLISH.pdf
[58] More on the law from already quoted Krämer, „Rights of Nature in Europe”.
[59] https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/town-of-serra-de-outes-galicia-spain-declaration-of-the-rights-of-the-tins-river/
[60] Killean, Gilbert, i Doran, „Rights of Nature on the Island of Ireland”.
[61] https://www.natures-rights.org/uk-bill
[62] full version available here: https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Germany-District-Court-ruling.pdf; for english translation of key fragments check here: https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2024/08/30/german-rights-of-nature-case-8-o-1373-21/
[63] https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/lg-erfurt-urteil-8o137321-dieselskandal-rechte-der-natur-klimawandel-zerstoerung-der-umwelt
[64] Check: Norbert Bernsdorff i Martin Borowsky, Die Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union: Handreichungen und Sitzungsprotokolle, 1. Aufl (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges, 2002); Jürgen Meyer, red., Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 2. Aufl., Beck-Online Bücher (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges, 2006).
[65] https://openjur.de/u/2496317.html
[66] also Wiater, Patricia, Rights of Nature as Part of Human Rights Protection? On the Potential of Anthropocentric Human Rights Protection (July 30, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4968189 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4968189
[67] pointed to as the most important by the Court: Nathalie Hervé-Fournereau. Rights of Nature and European Union Law : Paths of Dialogue. IODE – Institut de l’Ouest : Droit et Europe- université de Rennes. 2024. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04650639; Adriano Favole, Giovanni Palchetti, i Barbieri Giovanni Tarli, red., I diritti della natura: confronti tra antropologia, filosofia e giurisprudenza, Diritto e società 78 (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2024).; Erika Wagner i in. Eigenrechtsfähigkeit der Natur (2022): https://www.ooe-umweltanwaltschaft.at/Mediendateien/1Eigenrecht_NaturHP.pdf
[68] Worth comparing with Christopher Stone’s article, p. 454-456, w in which the author gives examples of justifications of courts denying the rights of slaves or women to practice as judges. The text is available here: https://iseethics.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stone-christopher-d-should-trees-have-standing.pdf
[69] „Dieser ausgreifende Ansatz führt nun dazu, die bisher vom Rechtsschutz ausgeschlossenen ökologischen Personen vom Personenbegriff erfasst zu sehen”
[70] ref. on chapter analysis (2023) Craig M. Kauffman, Global Patterns and Trends in Rights of Nature Legal Provisions: Insights from the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor, p. 183-210; book available here: https://mothrights.org/wp-content/themes/nyu-moth/assets/images/book/pdfs/More-Than-Human-Rights_Book.pdf
[71] With reference to, among other things, the June 2024 study The Impact of the Rights of Nature: Assessing the Implementation of the Los Cedros Ruling in Ecuador, 2024, retrieve here: https://mothrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Final-The-Impact-of-the-Rights-of-Nature-01.pdf
[72] https://pan.pl/katastrofa-na-odrze-geneza-terazniejszosc-zalecenia-na-przyszlosc/
[73] Document prepared by the Client Earth Lawyers for the Earth Foundation, the Frank Bold Foundation, the Greenmind Foundation, the Polish Society for the Protection of Birds, the WWF Poland Foundation, available, among others, here: https://www.wwf.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/biala_ksiega_polskich_rzek.pdf
[74] Check also: Pawlaczyk P. (ed.), Biedroń I., Brzóska P. Dondajewska-Pielka R., Furdyna A., Gołdyn R., Grygoruk M., Grześkowiak A., Horska-Schwarz S., Jusik Sz., Kłósek K., Krzymiński W., Ligięza J., Łapuszek M., Okrasiński K., Przesmycki M., Popek Z., Szałkiewicz E., Suska K., Żak J. 2020. Podręcznik dobrych praktyk renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych. Oprac. w ramach przedsięwzięcia „Opracowanie krajowego programu renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych”. Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie, Krajowy Zarząd Gospodarki Wodnej, Warszawa, str. 20-74. (Handbook of good practices for surface water restoration. Developed. Within the framework of the project “Development of the national program of surface water renaturalization”. Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie, National Water Management Authority, Warsaw, pp. 20-74.) Available here https://www.wody.gov.pl/images/Aktualnosci/foto/renaturyzacjaKPRWP/Podrecznik_renaturyzacji.pdf
[75] eg. Czupryniak Katarzyna, Zając Krzysztof (2023). Rzeki solą płynące. Fundacja WWF Polska. Retrieve here: https://www.wwf.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/Rzeki_sola_plynace_raport_FINAL.pdf
[76] A. Smoliński, „Gospodarka zasolonymi wodami kopalnianymi”, Prace Naukowe GIG. Górnictwo i Środowisko / Główny Instytut Górnictwa nr 1 (2006): 9.
[77] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/08/20/quality-unknown
[78] eg. Zyman i Madej, „Kryzys ekologiczny na Odrze – spóźnione działania podmiotów publicznych”, 47; Biała Księga, s. 29-32
[79] For information on technologies that reduce salt pollution, see for example: https://kghm.com/pl/podjecie-decyzji-w-sprawie-opracowania-studium-wykonalnosci-warzelni-soli and https://gig.eu/pl/newsy/spotkanie-nt-projektu-odsalania-wod-kopalnianych
[80] Damania, Richard; Desbureaux, Sébastien; Rodella, Aude-Sophie; Russ, Jason; Zaveri, Esha. 2019. Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis. © Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/32245 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO, p. 107. See on evaluating the various solutions available pp. 93-116.
[81] https://www.natures-rights.org/uk-bill
[82] Mumta Ito, „NATURE’S RIGHTS: WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION NEEDS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN LAW TO ACHIEVE ITS 2050 VISION”, Revista Argumentum – Argumentum Journal of Law 21, nr 3 (Dec 23, 2020): 1473–1504. [tekst dostępny tutaj: http://ojs.unimar.br/index.php/revistaargumentum/article/view/1457/836]
[83] https://www.natures-rights.org/
[84]for the historical perspective check: https://www.natures-rights.org/eu-charter and for the directive: https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/International_Draft-Directive-ECI-for-Rights-of-Nature_264.pdf
[85] European Economic and Social Committee. i in., Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature.
[86] http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload52.pdf, s. 1-2
[87] The model in its most current version is available here: https://www.natures-rights.org/framework;Check also; Mumta Ito, „NATURE’S RIGHTS: WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION NEEDS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN LAW TO ACHIEVE ITS 2050 VISION”, Revista Argumentum – Argumentum Journal of Law 21, nr 3 (Dec.23, 2020), pp. 1497–1504. and: http://ojs.unimar.br/index.php/revistaargumentum/article/view/1457/836]
[88] Examples of the implementation of such solutions are presented in part one of the study.
[89] Ito, „NATURE’S RIGHTS”, 1503.
[90] Frank Adloff i Tanja Busse, ed.., Welche Rechte braucht die Natur?: Wege aus dem Artensterben, 2.ed. (Campus Verlag, 2023), https://doi.org/10.12907/978-3-593-44851-0; Kauffman i Martin, The Politics of Rights of Nature; European Economic and Social Committee. i in., Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature.
[91] Check with Andreas Gutmann, Hybride Rechtssubjektivität (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2021), https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748926757.
[92] https://ecojurisprudence.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/International_Draft-Directive-ECI-for-Rights-of-Nature_264.pdf. On the subject also from European Economic and Social Committee. i in., Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature, pp.125–26. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2864/25113
[93] Ruru, „Indigenous Ancestors”. also: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html#DLM6831459
[94] Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World, 526.
[95] https://www.rightsofrivers.org/#declaration
[96] Effective February 2024 regulation available here: https://yurok.tribal.codes/YTC/21.60; previously (2019) mentioned at https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/resolution-establishing-rights-of-the-klamath-river/.
It is worth pointing out that the Klamath River is of great importance to indigenous communities, who are successfully fighting for its welfare, see for example press reports on this topic: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240903-removing-the-klamath-river-dams-to-restore-the-river-what-happens-next and https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241122-salmon-return-to-californias-klamath-river-after-dam-removal
[97] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401991#enc_1
[98] check pp 73-74 of the document “Social Plan for Renewal of the Oder River.” („Społeczny Plan odnowy Odry – raport z badań ichtiofauny i malakofauny po zatruciu Odry w 2022r”) http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/SPOLECZNY_PLAN_ODNOWY_ODRY_raport_final_druk.pdf
[99] Rodgers, „A New Approach to Protecting Ecosystems”.
[100] Jeremie Gilbert i in., „Understanding the Rights of Nature: Working Together Across and Beyond Disciplines”, Human Ecology 51, nr 3 (2023):pp 363–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00420-1.
[101] Szlauer-Łukaszewska i in., „Quantifying a mass mortality event in freshwater wildlife within the Lower Odra River”. See also the assumptions of the Oder River Ecosystem Restoration Action Plan, p. 67-73, in „Społeczny Plan odnowy Odry – raport z badań ichtiofauny i malakofauny po zatruciu Odry w 2022 r.”: http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/SPOLECZNY_PLAN_ODNOWY_ODRY_raport_final_druk.pdf
[102] Check also Pawlaczyk P. (red.), Biedroń I., Brzóska P. Dondajewska-Pielka R., Furdyna A., Gołdyn R., Grygoruk M., Grześkowiak A., Horska-Schwarz S., Jusik Sz., Kłósek K., Krzymiński W., Ligięza J., Łapuszek M., Okrasiński K., Przesmycki M., Popek Z., Szałkiewicz E., Suska K., Żak J. 2020, Handbook of good practices for surface water restoration. Developed. Within the framework of the project “Development of a national program of surface water renaturalization”. (Podręcznik dobrych praktyk renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych. Oprac. w ramach przedsięwzięcia „Opracowanie krajowego programu renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych”.) Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie, Krajowy Zarząd Gospodarki Wodnej, Warszawa, esp. pp.74-180. Available here https://www.wody.gov.pl/images/Aktualnosci/foto/renaturyzacjaKPRWP/Podrecznik_renaturyzacji.pdf
[103] On the importance of appropriate tools in promoting the effectiveness of conservation regulation, see the World Bank report, Damania, Richard; Desbureaux, Sébastien; Rodella, Aude-Sophie; Russ, Jason; Zaveri, Esha. 2019. Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis. © Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/32245 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO, pp. 93-116.
[104] There are more problems regarding the practical application of current solutions, see the White Paper on this subject, among others,pp. 41-73. https://www.wwf.pl/sites/default/files/inline-files/biala_ksiega_polskich_rzek.pdf
[105] The two are supported by further elements of the river’s protection system, in particular the strategic committee and the prescribed regulatory platform for dialogue and cooperation for the river’s welfare, see Part 4 of the regulation: Subpart 4—Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua and Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/096be8ed81e0a57e.pdf; On the activities of the strategic committee https://www.tekopuka.co.nz/
[106] Comp. Art. 3 of Bill on legal personality of Mar Menor: Ley 19/2022, de 30 de septiembre, para el reconocimiento de personalidad jurídica a la laguna del Mar Menor y su cuenca. «BOE» núm. 237, de 3 de octubre de 2022 https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2022/09/30/19
[107] Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World, 527–32.
[108] Check e.g.. Pawlaczyk P. (red.), Biedroń I., Brzóska P. Dondajewska-Pielka R., Furdyna A., Gołdyn R., Grygoruk M., Grześkowiak A., Horska-Schwarz S., Jusik Sz., Kłósek K., Krzymiński W., Ligięza J., Łapuszek M., Okrasiński K., Przesmycki M., Popek Z., Szałkiewicz E., Suska K., Żak J. 2020. Podręcznik dobrych praktyk renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych. Oprac. w ramach przedsięwzięcia „Opracowanie krajowego programu renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych”. Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie, Krajowy Zarząd Gospodarki Wodnej, Available here : https://www.wody.gov.pl/images/Aktualnosci/foto/renaturyzacjaKPRWP/Podrecznik_renaturyzacji.pdf
[109] Neil M. Dawson i in., „The Role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Effective and Equitable Conservation”, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319.
[110]Article 4. pt. 3 of the Spanish law emphasizes that the scientific committee must be independent and composed of persons of recognized scientific merit; and one of its most important tasks is to monitor indicators of the ecological condition of the ecosystem, identify risks and make recommendations for appropriate corrective actions.
[111] Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World, 531.
[112] on this subject: Yaffa Epstein i in., „Science and the legal rights of nature”, Science 380, nr 6646 (May 19, 2023): eadf4155, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4155.
[113] Check also. David J. Jefferson, Elizabeth Macpherson, i Steven Moe, „Experiments with the Extension of Legal Personality to Ecosystems and Beyond-Human Organisms: Challenges and Opportunities for Company Law”, Transnational Environmental Law 12, nr 2 (Jul 2023): 343–65, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000079.
[114] Por. art. 21, w Cárdenas i Turp, A Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and other Rivers of the World, 534.
[115]“Die Zuerkennung von Rechten setzt im Übrigen nicht zwingend die Belastung mit Pflichten voraus, etwa einem Haftungsregime. So genießen Säuglinge oder Menschen im Wachkoma sicherlich Rechte, jedoch werden ihnen keinerlei Rechtspflichten auferlegt. Ohnehin setzt die Auferlegung von Pflichten eine Autonomie voraus, die auf Seiten der Natur nicht besteht”; https://openjur.de/u/2496317.html
[116] on right to water check; Morgera, E., Webster, E., Hamley, G., Sindico, F., Robbie, J., Switzer, S., Berger, T., Silva Sànchez, P.P., Lennan, M., Martin-Nagle, R., Tsioumani, E., Moynihan, R. & Zydek, A. 2020. The right to water for food and agriculture. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8248en.
[117] G. Rast, P. Obrdlik, P. Nieznański, Atlas obszarów zalewowych Odry. Atlas niw Odry. Odra-Auen – Atlas. Rastatt 2000; check here: https://atlas.odra.pl/pl/text/2.shtml
[118] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en
[119] Comp. on this topic of reducing flood risk and increasing the resilience of ecosystems to drought Pawlaczyk P. (red.), Biedroń I., Brzóska P. Dondajewska-Pielka R., Furdyna A., Gołdyn R., Grygoruk M., Grześkowiak A., Horska-Schwarz S., Jusik Sz., Kłósek K., Krzymiński W., Ligięza J., Łapuszek M., Okrasiński K., Przesmycki M., Popek Z., Szałkiewicz E., Suska K., Żak J. 2020. Podręcznik dobrych praktyk renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych. Oprac. w ramach przedsięwzięcia „Opracowanie krajowego programu renaturyzacji wód powierzchniowych”. Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie, Krajowy Zarząd Gospodarki Wodnej, Warszawa, pp. 44-74.available here [25.11.2024]: https://www.wody.gov.pl/images/Aktualnosci/foto/renaturyzacjaKPRWP/Podrecznik_renaturyzacji.pdf
[120] Check :, Damania, Richard; Desbureaux, Sébastien; Rodella, Aude-Sophie; Russ, Jason; Zaveri, Esha. 2019. Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis. © Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/32245 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.